Screwballs
of the month
August 2005
Katrina never made it to where I
was, thankfully, but some folks who seem to have had their intellect blown away
by Category 5 winds did. And some really pounded the wall with their skulls
hard enough to cause another natural disaster. Take this first bunch –
From the mailbag
This first guy could have been the source for a “you may be a fundy atheist” list himself.
If you want atheist,
Christian man, get this:
www.bobthefrog.gingernet.co.uk
It deals with right-wing politics too, so yeah, Christianity is well
covered, in particular covering the Christian bush administration.
I pointed out that I was not Catholic (as he said in another part of the message) and not right wing in my politics (but rather independent). No worries:
I know that you are
not Catholic, but I see no real reason in making a
distinction between right-wing *political* motivations, i.e
- religion.
There is nothing more political than religion.
If you are keeping a score, I wouldn't advise it, the whole 'I believe
in an all powerful deity' is quite unconvincing. I just loved the
'medication' bit. I'm not the one believing in a 'god.' I don't
need
to make an argument against religion. Every time a Christian
minister/Catholic priest/member of the KKK opens his (it usually is
'his' for you don't really believe in equality between men and women)
slightly podgy mouth, religion, once again tightens the noose around its
neck. In my opinion, you should try and start young. Get
Christianity
into schools, it takes children to believe that sort of nonsense. Oh
wait, you already do. Shouldn't that be classed as some sort of abuse,
setting up schools that intend to create a new generation of young
Christian children?
Oh, and I shouldn't
try to degrade atheists -
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html
- by pretending that they
have the sort of ignorance in their arguments that your average (no
wait, make that 'all') Christians seem to behold.
There is no such thing as a 'fundamentalist atheist' and the arguments
that are contained are utter bollocks, and are, almost ironically,
similar to examples of Christian ignorance, i.e -
Evolution couldn't
have happened, because God made the world in 6 days, and rested on the
7th. A slightly polarised example, but all the
necessary elements for a
good example are there,lol.
Your entire belief structure is based upon
the belief in a god, why do you think you have any right to even attempt
to display any signs of logical thought.
The vast majority of intelligent people are atheists, by default. Your
site angers me because it misrepresents atheists as some sort of 'weird'
idea, when actually it is the very lack of a 'weird' idea.
For example:
'You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief
in God " and not just " belief that there is
no god" as if this is a
meaningful distinction in real life.'
Considering that your entire belief is based upon words, this is
suprising. I think atheists get a little
annoyed at Christian attempts
to attempt to turn atheism into another
religion, when it is the lack of
a religion.
Meanwhile more Christ-mythers came
out of the hole, with a rash of excuses like this one. It was claimed I made a
logical error in an appeal to certain evidence:
Observational
selection - looking at one side of the coin. One example from
the prodigious pile (weak reference to "A word to the wise is
often enough") should suffice. You offer an inscription found in
Caesarea Maritima as the sole reliable source of
documentation that the
Wow. So
there was more than one
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html
Don't you have something more important to do? Doesn't god, in all his
perfection need you to pray some more to it?
You must feel awfully special, you go to heaven, atheists go to hell,
you make fun of them, they burn. What a wonderfully loving religious
person.
And in the “Let’s Raise the Bar to 10,000 Feet” Department:
You cannot teach what you do not know,
regardless of what any book says including the bible! Has anyone died and come
back to say if there is a hell or heaven! There is no proof of any belief! All
we can do is gain as much knowledge as possible and draw the best guest!
Nothing is guaranteed! Thank you for your time.
And
of course, we can’t make it complete without one deluded Christian or two:
sorry, I read L. Ray Smith and I've read yours....and with rare
exception he's right. You're the ones trying to fit a round peg into a
square hole to match scripture to your theorys.
Sorry, you don't convince at all.
Also from
the Christian wing of the ward, this paranoid chap:
I do not have a problem with you
taking money from those who willingly and cheerfully want to support you.
However, I do not believe that any professing Christian of the Gospel of the
Lord Jesus Christ should take any 'handouts' from Caesar such as 501(c) (3). I
was sent your website today and browsed. You subscribe to the tithe and I do
not. I would not begrudge you your tithe if you can get it. But,
tax exemption from an antichrist secular humanist government? No, that I always find to the height of 'Christian'
hypocrisy.
And finally, a couple from the New Age wing of the institution, starting with this gem:
Breaking News
Be advised that the awaited Messiah and Divine Saviour and Just Leader of the whole of humanity has returned into the flesh of this world to restore the purity of faith, being the doctrine of PEACE of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and all of the heavenly revelations. Please advise all that his message from the Creator to humanity to prepare all for the coming TRIBULATIONS & utter destruction is now on line at:
< http://www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk >
< http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com >
After I told this squirrel to keep the acorns to himself, he replied:
every man has the
right to find a REASON to 'ridicule' others, seeing not that they in fact
ridicule themselves, for they (you) are no better than any 'prisoner' to this
land. Yes son, every person on earth that has any sin within (negative emotions
through which the dark operates) is such a 'slave,' and you are as much a
'knave' as any other.
My brother, why not
try and 'better' yourself by doing a little reading of
my web site. For I am the ONE with inner sight and it may not be as 'deep'
or clear as that of God, but I do know when another such as you NEEDS help.
Please do what you feel you need to in order to 'criticise
or condemn' ME as a 'screwball' - - - but just remember, I have spent 12
years of my life sitting in the hills with my wife writing day and night to
help you to SEE - - - before our God brings down the ULTIMATE and eternal
CALAMITY upon those that find ANY reason to NOT go their way in peace and
extend goodwill upon ALL -
Wow. I’d better repent.
Finally, the Uncritical Acharya S Stoolie of the Year wrote in with this:
I finally perused Higgins work after finding him
quoted by many bible scholars both Christian and not. It appears that Higgins did a monumental amount of
research; so much so that he is a source of knowledge for both those who believe
and those who don’t. I have both a hard bound and paperback copy of Anacalypsis and I read from them sever times a week. I disagree that he does not quote his sources.
If you read it with and unbiased approach, you
will observe that he almost always quotes his sources.
You are obviously a Christian devotee and as most, unable to think outside of that
box. Higgins may have made some errors but you Sir, believe in a bible
that has not one signed or dated
work. You believe in a system that has a mutilated, bloody man hanging from a tree as a symbol, who’s body you symbolically eat and who’s blood you symbolically drink. This God-Man, when
humanity on earth is ended, will have about 98% of all people who ever lived
being tormented in hell forever while a few of their friends and relatives are enjoying Paradise
with this Butcher-God. You believe in the Triumph of the Biblical Devil
as the ultimate end of the Creators work on earth. Higgins on his best
day cannot match this!
So I’ll continue reading Higgins for the 2nd
time and delight in his pursuit of knowledge, history
and truth. You cannot do this because you are stuck with document that
has no knowledge beyond that of the flat
earth, Dark Age ignorance expounded on nearly every page.
A guy named Bob E. gets one too, as he keeps writing me with stupid messages thinking he will disturb my faith, such as:
What a pity you were
unable to attend this [JP]. I noted the attendance of other
"credible" scholars. You could have provided comic relief and a
dissertation on how chemicals cause strange thinking and behaviour.
Apparently there are new openings for suicide bombers once
Allah be praised,
Bob
http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/news.html
Wow whatta lineup. A racist (J. Duncan M. Derrett), a crackpot psychologist (Elst),
and Kenneth Humphreys of jesusneverexisted.com!
Golden duh award winners
Special lifetime Achievement award
One for Ed Babinski (Babaloo on Tweb) for cowardice, as well as the usual decontexualizations. Unable to face me on TWeb, he resorts to skulking around on his own website – and little wonder, with gems like this in his cap:
Other verses likewise
depict both man and even God's enjoyment over revenge: “The righteous will
rejoice when he sees the vengeance, he will bathe his feet in the blood of the
wicked” (Ps. 58:10) “The Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you” (Deut.
28:63)
I guess Edski gets his kicks reading ancient war
monuments and overliteralizing them.
What's really weird
about such verses is that another verse in the same Bible tells you NOT to
"rejoice" when your enemy falls in battle: “Do not rejoice when your
enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles... If your enemy
is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to
drink... He who rejoices at calamity shall not go unpunished.” (Proverbs 17:5;
24:17 & 25:21--Of course the "Proverbs" in the Bible consist of
collected wise sayings, many of which might not be original to
Edski is still a fundamentalist who has no conception
of reading ancient war talk or proverbs as anything but literal instructions.
And he's still plugging that idiotic "pagan parallel" argument as
though it has any meaning (and which I have, again, addressed in articles, but
don't tell him that).
In fact the Hebrew
language is not filled with Egyptian loan words at all, just as one might
expect if their ancestors ALL came over from Egypt after having remained there
for four and a half centuries. Instead, the Hebrew language is merely a dialect
of the same root language that the Canaanites spoke, Akkadian.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia understates the obvious when it admits,
"Notwithstanding the long sojourn in
That wins gold by itself. Loanwords would come to exist in a language mainly
because a culture has no word for a certain thing that another culture has.
Solid gold, baby.
And when you eat fish and chips, you think you see dagon
Stevie Carr gets one (and Richard Carrier shares it, for endorsing it) for this comment:
Ask 500 Catholics
after Mass if they have received the real body and blood
of Jesus and they will say yes. Are they hallucinating? No. Does this mean a
non-Catholic would have seen the real body and blood of Jesus during Mass?
No. What people say they have seen is conditioned by what they want to say
they have seen. Talk of 'hallucinations' is beside the
point."
Plus Stevie had this comment of late:
Some examples of
geographical errors in Acts, contrary to Layman's claim that Luke gets
geography correct.
Acts 1
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their
very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly
two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of
Heaven is not in the sky.
Acts 7
55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory
of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 "Look," he
said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of
God."
Where was Stephen looking when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God?
Was he looking up to Heaven, as the Bible claims? How exactly do you look up to
Heaven?
Did he die for an hallucination?
Oh yeah, Lucian must
have meant that other jesus who was crucified in
A Christ-myther named Gladiatrix, from Christian Forums, could win gold for any of several comments, but this one takes the biscuit. Quotes are from my article on Lucian of Samasota.
Quote:
7 ) LUCIAN , (175 CE), refers to "the man
who was crucified in
REBUTTAL:
Yet another hearsay account, ~140 years after the alleged event. Note that
Lucian does not name the "man" (could have been anyone). Here from JP
Holding is what Lucien said (again to show just how VAGUE these alleged
"references" are):
Quote:
4) LUCIAN , (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in
Notice that Holding must admit that Jesus is NOT mentioned by Lucian. We are
just supposed to assume (AGAIN) that Jesus existed because Christians existed.
That is a really bad argument because what someone believes to be true is not
evidence of anything except their belief. I can believe that the Invisible Pink
Unicorn (IPU) exists, gain adherents, and found a religious institution, but
that would in no way make the IPU a reality.
Again there is NO counter to be made against the fact that Lucian wrote this
statement over 140 years after the alleged Jesus lived and died and there is no
reference given for where Lucian got his information or to just what cult he is
referring. Are we to assume that the only "cult" in
Trust us on evolution,
too.
The TalkOrigins site wins one for a variety of comments in a section on inerrancy, from which we select highlights, starting with this exercise in circular reasoning:
Inerrancy cannot be trusted. Errors
can only be corrected if they are first recognized and admitted. Inerrancy
makes that impossible. Therefore, errors in an inerrant interpretation of the
Bible can never be fixed.
Inerrancy is a contempt that breeds
hate. Inerrantists take it as divinely certain that
other people's religious views are inferior to their own.
One reaps what one sows, so when inerrantists show their contempt, contempt for their own
religious views is returned. History is bloodied by the consequences. Jews, Muslems, heathens, and other Christians have been
subjugated, tortured, and slaughtered in the name of the "true" god.
As the TWeb submitter of this said, “So we shouldn't
believe in inerrancy since we might get tortured? And nothing like stereotyping your opponent instead of answering
arguments.” It gets worse – paranoia and red herrings abound:
Inerrancy rejects much study of the
Bible (not infrequently to the point of persecuting the studier).
Most inerrantists
accept the King James version as authoritative, but
analysis of the earliest biblical manuscripts shows that the King James version
includes numerous errors.
Jesus himself said that religious laws
are not absolute. In Matthew 5:38, he rejects the "eye for an eye"
law (Exod. 21:23-25, Lev. 24:19-20, Deut. 19:21).
Jesus rejected all dietary law (Mark 7:19; cf. Lev. 11). He rejected the
commandment about working on the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). If Jesus considered that
even the laws of Moses were not inerrant, why should we consider any part of
the Bible inerrant?
The church cannot be an authority for
inerrancy because there is no one church. There are over 10,000 different
Christian denominations, all with different ideas about the Bible. In fact,
there are at least three significantly different Bibles (the Catholic,
Protestant, and Ethiopian Orthodox versions).
To claim that a particular interpretation
of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are
inerrant.
Noah smoked crack
“henry” from ex-christian.net amuses us with these lines:
Winston why do you smoke cigarettes?
You know that those things will kill you, yet you still insist on killing
yourself, you really should quit smoking because you
will be punished in a burning Hell that does not exist.
Winston you really have mental issues.
Winston you really need psychological help.
Winston did you know that cigarettes is a mind warping
drug?
Winston did you know that the people that wrote the bible were on Opiates and
Marijuana?
Winston did you know that the people that wrote the
bible
suffered from Frontal Lobe Trauma?
Winston do not ask me to proove
that you are an idiot, because you already have.
Farrell flies off the handle before he flushes
Gold for Farrell "Obsession" Till for a couple of items recently done, one where he continues to insist that credentialed scholarship is wrong about guilt/shame and cites English translations to prove it, and another where he harps on a certain minor point about Bible restroom usage.
Witherington of the devil!
One “Danusha Goska” had some comments on Ben Witherington’s “Gospel Code” (a reply to The Da Vinci Code) on Amazon.com:
Apparently, though, some fear that
"The Da Vinci Code" is part of a vast
conspiracy to wrest priestly power and prestige from whence it so rightly
belongs - in the hands of heterosexual males. Ben Witherington III - could his name - as in
"withering glance," multiplied by three - be more perfect? - is one of those very frightened heterosexual men.
I picked up Mr. Witherington-Three's "The Gospel
Code" hoping for what the cover of the book seems to promise: a fun, pop theological investigation of "The Da Vinci Code"'s more
outrageous plot points, including, perhaps, the loopy claim that Harvard has
faculty devoted to "symbology." (Poor
Harvard - yet another potential victim of the vast conspiracy by Da Vinci Code fans imagined by Mr. Witherington-Three
- no doubt Harvard has been inundated by freshmen hoping to major in "symbology" as a way to meet cute French chicks.)
What I found between the covers of
"The Gospel Code" was *not* fun. It wasn't theology, except in the scariest sense of that word, a sense best
reserved for discussions of the Dark Ages and bloody religious strife. What
"The Gospel Code" offers is a mean, misogynist, and inaccurate ride
through one man's paranoia, arrogance and anger.
Finally, Witherington-Three's
book is rife with the kind of simple errors that a
copy editor should have picked up. I normally don't nitpick like this,
but, c'mon, how do you get away with publishing a book that purports to correct
others' errors while promulgating so many of your own? Gee - wasn't there a guy
who once talked about the speck in your brother's eye v. the beam in your own?
Anyway, on page 16 there is an incorrect use of
"who;" it should be "whom;" on
page 21 there is an incorrect use of "less" where "fewer"
is the required word; on page 24 Witherington-Three
uses the almost unbelievably infelicitous "for
he," which should be, of course, "for him." I could go
on, but you get the point.
That’s it, now circe is really peeved
Julia Sweeney in a recent
interview to promote her new book on Atheism:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...5/findrelig.DTL
To me, the
Iliad offers more insight into human character and lessons than the Bible. You
know, like Jesus was angry a lot. When he turned all those people into pigs
and made them run off a mountain, it was so hateful, not just to people but
to pigs. I felt upset for the pigs!
The mojo jojo award
One Sharon Mooney, a friend of Ed Babinski, wins a Lifetime Award too for her recent discussion with me on rabbits “chewing the cud.” Other than using dictionary.com to define a Hebrew word, we have this sort of comment:
In case you missed it Dee Dee, scientists have
repeatedly stated the rabbit does not "chew" on that pellet. That's
all a cud is, is a wad of something chewed on --like chewing tobacco. The
pellet is swallowed whole. Caecal pellets have
nothing in common with "cud chewing". They're not chewed. If the
rabbit set there and chewed and chewed and chewed on the pellet, it would be
called cud chewing. But it does not do that.
Is that you, Mojo?
"Chewing is all cud is
about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are chewing. And
chewing is all cud is about. Because when cows chew
the cud, it is the cud they are chewing. And chewing is all cud
is about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are
chewing..."
And also, for not
being up to date on doctrine:
As soon as you guys
choose that other word, Christians are going to know
your true blasphemous nature... changing the King James Bible?? GO RIGHT
AHEAD JP HOLDING. ARE YOU JP HOLDING, SAYING THERE
IS AN ERROR IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?
And finally, for this travesty of lexical adventure, in which she tries to prove
to me that the Hebrew word does mean “chew”:
But it does JP Holding, and you know that
too, don't you?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_...167-6063.html#7
"of them that chew" ([05927] `alah) --
"for they chew" ( [05927] `alah )
What she links to is essentially an INTERLINEAR that shows that "for
they chew" is what translators have put for 'alah.
When you click the Strong's number you find a list of meanings and "chew"
is not one of them.
So Gold Screwball, and also a Sheila L. Ranglinsger
Award to
Silver duh award winners
“slingshot” from ex-Christian.net wins a “That’s Obvious” Award:
Those people over at Theologyweb argue a lot over correct
interpretation of scripture-typically christian of them..
“vinnie” on Christian Forums gets a Head in Sand Award for when a Christian said to him:
I mentioned these guys:
- Bruce Malina & Richard Rohrbaugh,
Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics, and
Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel on John.
- See also John Pilch, Jerome Neyrey,
and David deSilva. The Context Group publications are
listed here.
- Ben Witherington also has several socio-rhetorical
commentaries which I'm sure have plenty of insight; that man is gigantic and
I'm only holding off from reading him because of his size.
- For literary interest, see Richard Longenecker's
Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. I recommend
hitting the social sciences first though.
And vinnie replied:
This is all poor scholarship and
wishful thinking.
Redwolf979 wins the Misplaced Genre Award for:
There are loads of contradictions in
the Bible so why do you say it's the word of God?
Bible is no different than Stephen King's "The Shining"..or Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings"...or Herbert's
"Dune" series! I can derive as much "truth" from any
of these because both cannot be demonstrated in reality. Your god is as unknown to you as The God Emperor of Dune is
to me. Even worse because at least I get a description
of The God Emperor when I read Dune. So why do you beleive
that the bible is true?
Why do you believe in Magic?
John D. Brey one TWeb wins the Take a Cold Shower and Fast Award for his sexual interpretation of the Ark of the Covenant, such as:
Ergo the golden chest is the holy scrotum of God
containing His two testes, or testimonial stones. The wings of the cherubs on
either side of the throne represent the penne, or pen-is, that will take the
testimony in the stones and scribe them on the hearts of man:
Plus extra credit and a Sci Fi Scholarship Award for this theme:
Two things seem
interesting and meaningful to me. ---- First, that for
over three thousand years atheist Jews have been repressing their hatred for
Moses so that this Jewish atheist Lucas comes
along and makes this image of Moses as a Dark Levite High Priest who is satanic and who must
be made to pay for being the Dark Father (Darth Vader) of the nation of Israel.
Secondly, I buy into Otto Weininger's assertion that
"Jewish-ness" is as much a "type" as a religion, or a
biological relationship. Weininger goes into detail
cataloguing the "type" and gives good reason why most of the general
population fit the type.
In my opinion, Star Wars (which I believe is a total flop from any objective
criterion) was a box office smash because not only do ethnic Jews who are
atheists hate and represss everything Moses stood for
. . . but also . . . all those non-Jewish persons who fit the "type"
have bells and whistles go off in their head when they see Darth Vader. They somehow instinctively see Darth Vader as a type of
Moses and every other authoritarian leader and they love to hate him as
Jewish atheists love to hate Moses. (And how much better if
they can hate Moses in the guise of this Dark allegorical figure.)
DoubtingJohn wins the Pathological Literality Award for this commentary on Acts 17:
By the way,
verse 21 has to be such an exaggeration that it's quite simply false, and hence
a lie. "All the Athenians"...."spent their time doing nothing
but talking..." What? They didn't work, or wash clothes, or cook? So we
already know this report is a gross exaggeration by verse 21 alone. So we have
to start asking what would the people in
On the side, “loogy” wrote this up for DJ and we append it to the Award:
Church of the Doubting John
The service goes something like this:
First we sing hymns about how we studied under William Lane Craig but we
decided to go our own path. We carefully ignore any mention about how we often
didn't bother going to class or even try to actually understand the subject materia. That would just get in the way of going our own
ways, so what's the point.
Next with more upbeat and aggressive songs, we extol the stupidity and
incompetence of JP Holding. If our spirits lead us, we might even mention how
JP needs new socks and that his car is very uncool.
This actually happens quite often.
We then open up the Book of Ancient Superstitions. Nothing quite warms up a
soul like burning a strawman. The wafting smell is
invigorating.
We close the service with a high. The whole congregation encourages each other
on how we are the very smartest people and how anyone who believes in a deity is
extremely stupid. Sometimes we even apologize to extremely stupid people for
insulting them by comparing them to theists. We often get into this rousing
call-and-response of "Who's the God?" I'm the God!".
It can go on for several minutes.
We leave the service pumped up. We are ready to go out and tell everyone they
are morons. Nothing feels better than feeling superior to everyone else.
Lazy Agnostic wins the Pathetic in Action Award for a thread in which he resuscitated his "live debate" thesis with skilled rationalizations, even after a sound beating in a poll showing the far majority of people prefer that I stick with written debate. Lazy Agnostic also wins a Poor Sportsmanship Award for the following:
Mad_gerbil: This comic killed me:
http://www.tektonics.org/toons/barktoon01.htmlFUH-NNY
stuff --
Lazy Agnostic: I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by some real clever
stuff. Can anyone explain why it's funny? Is it a wry parody, or what? It seems
to be just lame insults and mischaracterization.
I'm sure it's heartening to know what he does with his time while his wife is
out earning the bacon.
Oh well...also an obsession award for loitering on threads about me all month.
Jude3b wins the Hateful History in Action Award for these:
Its not talked about very much any more. They
don't teach about it in the Public School systems and certainly Parochial
schools won't say much about it, but there was a time when Roman Catholicism
used terrorism and acted just like modern day Islamic terrorists.
You do not find any Christians in
the Bible called Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, or Protestant.
Zipperhead wins multiple awards for various comments, such as starting a thread titled “Atheists Spread AIDS” in which he uses Fred Phelps as a source; plus these:
1Cr 14:34 LET
YOUR WOMEN KEEP SILENCE IN THE CHURCHES: for IT IS NOT PERMITTED UNTO
THEM TO SPEAK; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also
saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let
them ask their husbands AT HOME: for IT IS A SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN
THE CHURCH.
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments
of the Lord.
1Cr 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
That means if you deny that "Let your women keep
silence in the churches" and "for it is a shame for women to speak in
the church" are "the commandments of the Lord" you "be
ignorant!"
How then you gunna mangle those verses?
And:
What does "free will" mean?
What IS a "free will?"
Where is a "free will" located?
What is a "free will" made out of?
What's REALLY funny is what he says he gonna do when you answer him.
When you answer these questions, you'll be asked to explain what your answers mean, and then
to explain what your explanations mean, and then to explain what the
explanations of your explanations mean, and then to explain what the
explanations of your explanations of your other explanations mean, and so on
and so forth, etc. etc. etc.
I want to know how you define certain words you're
going to be using, and I'm going to take certain words that you use in your
definitions and ask what you're defining them to mean, and when you answer me,
I'll most likely do it again with a word or two in the sentence you type as
your answer, and I'll stop when come off to me as something other than a
blithering lexiphanic retard.
Squaekybro wins the Finding Satan a New Job Award for this comment:
Grammer is something man put in. And apparently
the devil had something to do with it.
Sonofyah gets
a piece of it too, plus multiple awards for various comments:
Get a copy and read
it. There is NO Jesus there. The "j" was not invented yet. The
"J" was a mistake on the printing press. If you look at the Alphabet
closely you will see it clearly that the "I,i" and the "J,j"
look alike.....there is no other language
besides the English that have a J sound within it. Satans
best trick was not convincing the world he didn't exist it was changing the
names of the father and the son. How can you rebuke him in the name of jesus. He will laugh at you.
Recognize that Satan is the master of confusion not of mind control. The word
says let this mind be in you that is also in Messiah. If you give ear to satan he will tell to tell me
there is a differnt name in the Greek, Latin and
Hebrew.
This is an imporant point:
Its funny how Satans name never
changes from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Its
also funny how Adam is still Adam in the Hebrew and the Greek. Yerushalayim is still Yerushalayim.
Moshe is still Moshe. Abraham is still Abraham.
THE ONLY NAMES THAT WERE TRANSLITERATED ARE THE NAMES WE NEED THE MOST.
THINK ABOUT IT
To qoute
me something out of a book used by the Catholic church is a little close minded
when you know Catholic meaning "universal"
embraces most religions and beliefs. With that being said they have to
first find out which god they want serve today.
The english language is the chosen
language for
We get away from being
Set-Apart in the presents of YHWH and try to prove that he exist.
Solomon prayed for Wisdom but he also wanted the
wisdom of the darkside. This is very
dangerous. We should just cry out for revelation knowledge and understanding of
the deep things of YHWH Elohim.
I award the Displaced Twin Sisters Award to Goliath and Crusader. The latter began to psychoanalyze people’s avatars, and being that I had one of my anthropomorphs up as one, I asked her if it meant I was into bestiality. She replied:
Furthermore, your
sexual references are vulgar, and have no place on a Christian website. I shall
report them forthwith.
Make sure you report the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel 23:20
while you're at it. Crusader also showed us why apologetics needed an overhaul
with comments like these:
Gee, thanks for the geography lesson.
Of course, I'm pretty familiar with
Goliath wins for comments like these from the Hayseed Collection:
And as far as how "personable" he
is, of course, you never challenge him! Only Crusader and I have done that. Nor
does anyone ever seem to challenge the mormons
except for-again-Crusader and me-and the aforementioned Jude3b and Deren and Confuzzled. So, yeah,
if you want everyone to "get along" then of course, don't bring up
the fact that they believe false religions and are going to hell because they
don't know the Lord, just have nice chats on line with them-and be sure to use lots of big words. It's
uncomfortable to really defend our faith, isn't it? People might not like us.
Further, I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this was a
Christian website, but it now appears to me that this
site is slowly being taken over by Satan to use as a tool for leading people
astray. If you want to kick me off the site for being blunt, then do so.
I no longer care. Goliath
Johnny Skeptic is banned now form
TWeb, but gets the I Can’t Win There So I’ll Boast
Here Award for this from IIDB:
I hereby offer
James Holding $1,000 to debate the
James Holding wouldn't be caught dead at this forum. He wouldn't be able to
call anyone any names, he would have less help from his buddies from the
Theology Web, and most of all there are a good number
of scholarly skeptics here who he is afraid of.
We lost Johnny at TWeb, but fear not, Bagger Vance has come to take his place with multiple-awarded comments and actions, such as being asked for a reference to a lexicon and giving a link to carm.org. Some more comments:
Who knows when they were
written. We certainly don't know with any degree of
certainty. I am not saying concretely either way when the epistles were written
but it it seems to me that they would have come after
the Edict of
For objective morality
to exist time frame, legality, popularlity of an
action is irrelevant. That is to say that the morality of any action is
independent of what the current law says or popular opinion. It is upon that
basis that the Pro-Life movement can say that abortion is wrong even if it is
legal. To argue that stoning a child is morally right because it is in a
certain society is either true or false. It matters not at all that this was
said in the 15th Century BC or that the theocracy in power said it was right.
If morals exist objective of those things then the
action is either right or wrong.
What happens is that Christians twist it
so that morality is whatever God says at the given moment. God can say thou shalt not kill and then slaughter the first born of
The
context of stoning children? I
asked you if you would want to live in the world set up by the perfect law
giver. I guess context is all you can provide
for a book that has some very disturbing aspects especially in the Old
Testament. Would you want to live in the
theocracy system presented in the Old Testament? It makes the Taliban seem
reasonable.
don't have to try and argue if the people in ANE could understand that what they were doing was wrong. Why?
Because supposedly your omniscient God was there writing these laws for them.
Isn't that your argument? That this is God's perfect will? If it is indeed God
that wrote those laws then you would have to argue that God was bound in that
time but I thought God was out of space/time? If God
is out of space/time why was he writing laws bound to the barbarism of the ANE? Could it be that you acknowledge that he didn't
write those laws? Could it be that it was the Israelites that wrote them and
attributed them to God? If so I understand your
argument. If it was the Israelites who were bound to their time and situation
then the law can at least be understood. If God however wrote them or inspired
them then they can not be understood because God would not be bound to the
timeframe. God wouldn't have limited knowledge you see.
Also, Bagger Vance responds to my explanation of what the Hebrew word for "kill" means in "thou shalt not kill":
The most interesting
thing about this is that you offer not one New Testament quote to back up your
capital punishment case. Not one. It is almost like they are two different
books isn't it?
Um – I didn’t use the NT to define a Hebrew word. Natch.
Danhalen gets the Forget the Kalam Award:
Would you believe me
if I told you I was perfect? Would you believe me if I told you I created the
universe? Would you believe me if I told you that you can
never attain perfection as I am? If your answer is "no" to any
or all of these questions, then why should I trust you when you tell me about
God?
Sol Invitcus wins the What You Talkin’ Bout Willis? Award:
Christianity states
that man is but a sinner, who can't do anything to please God.
Nothing whatsoever. Paul left little to the
imagination as far as that idea is concerned.
Along come the Christians, who go on to try to first of all claim that there is
no spiritual side to human beings. Then they go on to
try to get themselves 'saved' by trying to 'change' themselves in a way that
they think pleases God.. that
is their carnal selves, which Paul explicitly claims to be of no value to God
at all.
MaryBurwell earns herself the Crystal-Totin’ Christian Award for this prose:
I believe in the Bible
and in God because I like Him. I like the Bible. It is fun. I don't see how any
other "religion" or antireligion could be
as much fun as faith in the God of the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ. I
mean, my religion is a relationship. There is nothing to lose in becoming a
Christian, only things to gain. it's not about being a
Christian or being religious or moral, it is about KNOWING GOD. It is about
knowing my Heavenly Father and my Creator and Him knowing me. It is about
intimacy on a completely spiritual level that exhilarates my whole being and
fills me with live and God himself. It is an incredible thing to fall in love
with God and learn to trust Him and open up to Him about everything and give up
to Him and let Him shape me through His word. He is incredible and makes me SO
happy.
Numberprophet earns the Convenience Store Award for:
The bible tells us
that Jesus suffered, quite extensively, and died so our sins could be forgiven.
It also says that Jesus was the son of God etc...
Question:
If God is omnipotent why must he doom his only son to such a horrid fate?
Doesn't the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice imply that there is a law above God,
forcing him to put up his son for the rest of us?
Why can't God just forgive us and leave it at that?
Why the theatrics?
Rationalist gets the Outrage Award for:
Right now abortion is objectively moral.
The context of this time demands that women not bear children who - because
they are unwanted - could fall and become lucifer's tools, or even the anti-christ
himself.
Also, murder of muslim
women and children is presently moral. The triumph of Christianity is
threatened by the increase in population amongst muslims. Therefore it is
moral to exterminate them.
You have to understand the social context at the time, and what is at stake.
Anything at all is moral as long as you can imagine a contextual justification
for it which involves furthering the cause of God.
We poor atheist moral relativists have to stick to our conscience and empathy
for the pain and suffering of our fellow human beings. We don't have the luxury
of putting words in God's mouth.
I am reminded of story
in the New Testament
Jesus told us that the first person to throw a stone
at Mary Magdelan should be the one without
sin. That day He saved a guilty women from being
stoned to death because He thought that it was much better for her to change
her life than for the ravenous and hypocritical crowd to end her life. Would it
not be better to show the child why disrespect is wrong rather than showing the
town his insides?
AutoMaton gets himself a Spread the Stupidity Award because he started with this as an OP:
1.) There is no proof
that God exists...
2.) There is no proof that Jesus ever existed...
3.) The whole of Christianity is based on a work of fiction, and personal
recollection as its primary foundations...
4.) Religious people are addicted to faith and belief in the supernatural...
Just to clarify what relevance that fourth point makes, when you are addicted
to something, you generally defend it and everything it has to do with visciously...without anything substantial to backup your
reasoning.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
That’s bad enough, but after he did this the stupidity spread to the other atheists. Jimbo (Brooks Trubee) proceeded in the same thread to win his own Screwball for this comment in reply to Tacitus' reference to Jesus:
Sorry, but this does
not prove that the supernatural Jesus character portrayed in the Bible actually
existed. It only proves that a guy named Tacitus
wrote a blurb about Christians and the Christian religion around 117. What is
interesting is that there are no contemporary reports or writings about the
life or the ministry of Jesus. It would seem that no one knew Jesus existed
when he supposedly existed. Very curious.
And then rthearle won one too with this comment:
Can you show me a 19th century source where the existence of the
Scarlet Pimpernel is denied?
Then, Whoweepsforkirk (“He lost his toupee in all the ruckus") said for an award:
although i am new to this
particular thread, it seems to me i
am seeing more of the same christian tactics.
first, reference other christians
sources, which are biased.
second, dismiss those sources not christian
as having an anti-christian agenda.
third, take flimsy and questionable evidence, and,
using another christian source, present it as hard
evidence.
fourth, dismiss counter-points by categorizing their
sources as unreputable.
fifth, ignore evidence which exists but does not
support your opinion.
from a purely objective point of view, this type of
truth twisting is very evident.
was there a historical jesus?
it is probably impossible to say either way for sure. but christians have a tendency to
warp the facts in order to show that it is and has already been proven as fact.
in fact a survey of non-biased historians finds that
the answer is: maybe.
the existence of their religion is proof, they say. well, then buddha and krishna and rama must also have
definitely existed.
i am all for debate and research into the subject of
whether there was a real man named jesus, but i abhor the rather underhanded tactics i
see being used here by the christia
frivolimous wins the Lost in Time Award for:
Nay, I'm afraid it is
you who is mistaken. Catholicism was around long before Christ came and when he
did and the Catholics saw the christian
rise in popularity - they simply added Christ to their pantheon. I can't prove
this fact, of course, as it has been buried in history... but it has long been
believed not only by me but other theological historians.
Bronze duh award winners
And here’s a closing collection of miscellany.
“one love” from Christian Forums:
Dude, the claim that
Gospels as historical references should have been shot down by now. The people
who wrote them did not state this was a historical text and did not date them. If you want to use one religous scripture
why not another? Say the Hindu Vedic scriptures written 2000 years
before Genesis?
rileyj from ex-christian.net:
Science has proven
that hell is not in the core of the earth as christains
claimed for centuries. They switched to call it a
spiritual place.
“DaBlonde” from TWeb:
The best way to advance Christianity is to advance
liberalism since they are virtually the same
thing.
So does this make Conservatives Satanists?
“eliyosef” on TWeb wins for
actually arguing in favor of the Christ myth – he knows better – and especially
for arguing first that the Tanakh exposes Jesus, and
then arguing that it doesn’t mention him.
“apple” on TWeb wins a Lifetime Achievement Award for this effort to justify abortion from the Bible:
As for children being
a survival tool I'm sure pregnancy threatened the survival of prostitutes and
we all know prostitution is the oldest profession. Do you think a pregnant
prostitute did good business? Concerning a prostitute, carrying a fetus would
be like hitting oneself on the head.
If child sacrifice was
being practiced do you think abortion wasn't?
Golly -- how are they GOING TO perform child sacrifice if they're performing abortions?
Here are some names and statements that get Bronze:
Mystikiwi
I think it's an insult
to God to say that the Bible is "his Word".
Is that really the best He could do?
Does He care so little about us that all He gives us is a collection of old
texts that are often quite difficult to understand and were very poorly
distributed to the people of the world?
Oonna
My thinking has always
been, if God is "all That", why didnt he make the bible, or a different media so dang CLEAR
no one would ever question it. If God is really the maker of EVERYTHING, why
did he need man to write down his words for him? Couldnt
he do it himself? I know if i
want something done right, i had better do it myself,
you would think he would know that too.
SinCity702
Actually if you want
to get technical in the Orginal Hebrew Bibles it never said Jesus was hung on a
Cross. It said he was Hung on a TORTURE STEAK
or in other words a lim from a TREE. Never Cross,
that never came in existence untill the Catholic
religion added it in their own words basically they made the whole Cross thing
up, and that right their misguided many people. Also it is known even in
Encyclopedias (correct my spelling) even stated that the Catholic Religion took
out many words of the Bible and added their own.
For one the Torture Steak was turned into
CROSS. Second Gods Name in Hebrew and even Jewish bibles was JEHOVAH. Once
again the Catholics turned that name into Lord or exchanged it with God. Gods
name was really Yeh Weh(cant spell) but translated in english
Jehovah. To me the people that made those books were just people to throw
people off once again in religion. Anyways good topic!
Stalkingwolf
there are several "what ifs" to add to
this. What if, he was drugged to appear
dead to hasten his removal from the cross (granted that was nt a regular practice but Pilate
seems tohave been open to monetary persuasion).
What if arrangements had been made for a healer to be
waiting inside for him?
What if as do many holes in the groun this particular
one (maybe selected for this reason) had a "back
door."
what if the events talkied
of took place not outside
blueeyeliner
I'd like to alert all christians to be aware of some of the ways that demons get into the home. One way is through worldly music,
especially music the degrades women and is degrading in general.
All forms of porn,and sexual perversion. Horoscopes,and fortune telling,superstitions,and drug abuse. Bad movies,foul language,and
authorities of the home who may be friends with individuals who do
such things,or authorities of the home who do them.
The authority of the home is usually the male who pays the bills,but it can be the woman who is paying the bills and taking care of the home
if she is single,ect.....
If the Authority figure is a true christian then most likely the demons and spirits will be easier to rid your home of by casting them out. And you may
call them by name,like the spirit of mocking,rage,filthy language,hate,and
so forth.
Sometimes the authority in the home doesn't even realize that he or she has given these demons their authority as in the cases where their own
children are doing things in the home that they are not aware of,yet they
are not investigating suspicious behaviors in their children,ect....
Also,do your best not to fear demons and evil spirits. The first time one
yells at you can be a fright at first,but you will gain more power through
prayer and determination in your walk with Christ Jesus. God has given
us authority to trample on them,amen & amen.
lvdyou
Make note that this thread
is not about what everyone else wants to yap about, but the topic is very
specifically PARTIAL RAPTURE.
Can we please discuss the topic rather than give into
peoples' flesh?
Isn't it amazing how the flesh tries to exert itself in a heartbeat.
This is how Satan tries to deflect and misdirect the
word of God, and words that agree with God's word.
Looking forward to when someone is interested in discussing the topic itself.
Captain Sanity
Here look.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ape-man-line-up.jpg
The common ancestor of humans and was an ape.
Goose
Manuscripts are not
accepted as fact, because, like your previous post, they are assertions until
proven correct. Just because something is written about something, doesn't make
it true. This is a rule of thumb in archaeology.
Lucasinvictus
After posting Kersey Graves’ “crucified
saviors” list, says:
... usually the
'recognized' academic authoritys are some of the most
biased and ignorant people around... and this has been written about by many
people... higgens.. massey and kuhn did some
fascinating and very relevant work.. which is just now
begining to be seriously looked at.. as we emerge from the religious and scientific bias that has
plagued modern research for some time
Unpastorized
Hello StudyHound
What do you study? Yeah, i dont know labels. Im sorry. What would ya like to talk
about? Ive heard ya cant teach OLD DODS new tricks. You old studyhound? Ya ready to learn what the bible really says fido?
Wanna play old boy?
Well, seems everyone
wants to get on me cause i dont
know what futurism is. But....Ill focos
on the hound dog.
trase
The Bible, despite so
many discrepancies and contradictions in it, is a work of humans who have
witnessed extraordinary events and who tried their best to leave a record for
later generations. We must believe those people, unless we can prove them
wrong, and the best way to understand the Bible is by reading and understanding
"The Urantia Book". The Urantia
Book is the Bible enhanced 1000 times' and by combining the two anyone can
tell, fairly soon, wheather or not any other
"religious or spiritual" book is true or false. While I haven't read
"The Course in Miracles", I can tell you that "Conversations
with God " books are a fraud.
Provoker
In my opinion you are
heading in the right direction, but you still have some Roman doctrine you need
to scrape off...LOL
It is also my opinion that what we know as "the church" today, is not
the apostolic church, but is a "paganized"
religion, which was strategicly designed, for
political purposes, by bishops of the universal religion of the Roman empire.
The true Christian church(messianic assembly) began in
the 6th century BC when a Jewish prophet in
That Christian church almost died out after the Babylonian captivity when the
Jews returned to
Morcova
Jesus was considered a human sacrifice was he not? Sacrificing himself for
the sins of man? Why would a Gos [sic] who abhors
human sacrifice do such a thing?
Pythagoras
You're angry and frustrated . Perhaps because deep down you realize I'm
correctly expounding the Gospel Message and you're not.
Basically you go wrong when you say God is a "trinity".
The Seeker
Thread title: Was the Bible intended as
a literal, historical account?
I was just thinking about this last
night. To be honest, I can't see how the books of the bible can be thought of
as anything but literal, what would be the point in the geneologies
otherwise?
DMC
DMC: Was slavery fair or unfair? What about in the days
of Jesus?
Me: Do you assume that it did not change any since then?
DMC: Irrelevent. Fair or unfair?
and
DMC: The only think I call Christians wrong about in this discussion is
their contention that morality is absolute.
Me: Again: saying that there are no absolutes is an absolute statement in and
of itself. It is a self-contradiction.
DMC: Strawman. I did not say there are no absolutes, only that morality isn't an absolute.
and:
Me: All people have two ethical options: one, which says that there are no
binding moral absolutes--which is itself bound on all peoples and times,
therefore making it a self-contradiction, and....one that requires belief in
God.
DMC: It amounts to a play on words.
And:
DMC: I didn't say "Christianity" and you aren't
funneling me there. I said "bible".
BigArthur
Has anyone read the
history of contantine. He was a murderer, a thief, and he converted people to the
roman cathlic church by force. The cathlic religion spread all over
Is this what jesus would do?
Are these the ways of christ?
No they arent.
I dont trust any religions who have such corrupt
foundations. I conclude that none of the christian
religions today are of christ. Thier
foundations are built on that which is in cotradiction
to christ's teachings.
I have read the bible
twice. I am going for a third go at it. And I do follow my understanting
of it. All I am saying is that there is not a church out there that follows it's teachings. Not a one. They are all wrong. I do believe
the bible is true, but there has got to be one sound minded church out of the
hundreds that follow the teachings of the bible. They all have different
teachings. How can this be? God does not like disorder in his house. It either
means one thing or another not a 100 different things. All preachers are false
prophets. And all of them are wrong.
Trifixion
However,The
supposed "prince of peace" Jesus did say "do not think I have
come to bring peace on earth, but a sword. For I have come to cause division{wich naturlaly
leads to strife,prejudice,perseution,war and
death}".
He also commande dhis
followers in Matthew 5 to obey the jot and tittle of
the law{the letter of the law, despite the modern
evangelical catchphrase "spirit of law, not letter"}-and that law
contains some pretty brutal and cruel stuff, and historically Christians have
done a good job of obeying them, in other words all the cruelty done by christians in history is the nature of the God Jesus
claimed to be the son of,Yahweh/Jehovah, as evidenced
by his own commands.
However, then they should be called "Jehovians,
or Yahwehans" not "Christians",
because for all his inconsistency and hypocrisy, Jesus of Nazareth does seem to
have probably been a rather fair fellow and radical, Christians in history and
today{the majority, not neccaserily "all",
liberal Christians seem to live like Jesus a bit more} are not his followers
mostly.
Allthough, perhaps they are of Christ then if they
are inconsistent and hypocritical, because that is how Jesus was.
Soundsurfr
In reply to:
Did you ride the short
bus into this thread? Let's recap:
Salvationfound said:
According to who? If I say stoning a child to death is not barbaric and yousay otherwise why is your interpretation of what is
barbaric more valuable than mine? Cause your not a
Christian?
He is asking you to tell him why your interpretation of what is barbaric is
more valuable than his. Nowhere is the context of "western society"
invoked.
Replied:
Right, until I invoked
it. Which you WON'T accept, for reasons that are known only
to you. But I did mean it in that context, whether you're stuck in
denial about it or not.
Gospel Minister
11 When men strive
together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth
near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth
him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
Do you understand how serious this type of sin is? This woman ACCIDENTLY
touched another man's PRIVATE PARTS while attempting to get her husband away
from him in a fight. The word of God says to CUT OFF HER HAND, and NOT TO PITY
HER.
8320john
what the post modern "church" wants it
gets from the growing cadre of weak and effeminate men posing as ministers of
the Gospel.
I concur, the admendment allowing women to
vote in our Democratic Republic has divided the authority of a man
(husband) but it has also INCREASED the impact of
human depravity. Where once we had only the
male side of evil to contend with in the senate and house, we now have compounded that evil by allowing the female
gender a voice in national affairs, this is a great evil and a detriment to the political health
of the republic altho one voicing that view will be
shouted down by the feminists and even many men who are responsible for
abdicating their God ordained role as leader and protector. Now the die is cast
and only history will speak to the mistake of permitting women the vote in our
nation.
LakeGeorgeMan
I would hope there is
little dispute over the fact that lots of Jews named Yeshua
"existed" during the first century.
So what? Perhaps there were also some ancient Greeks named Hercules and
Achilles? Again, so what?
At best the Tacitus material shows that the
historian believed that someone he called ‘Christus’
(not Yeshua), had been executed by someone named
Pilate ( a name that would not have been known to his
readers). At best, this belief probably came from his interaction with
Christians who told him this, and/or reading their early literature.
At worst, the whole passage is a much later, forged Christian interpolation.
And its veracity has been challenged by many historical scholars.
Again, neither Christians, nor anyone named “Yeshua”
were of much interest to Tacitus or his Roman
audience in general in the year 117. Alas, he’s probably burning in hell for
that that foolish oversight…
Where you constantly get into trouble JP, is when you try to compare and
equate Tacitus brief quip about Jesus, to the much
more extensive material he wrote about the
So lets all agree that someone named Yeshua lived in
the ANE in the first century...big deal...
GreatWhiteHype2 on my style.
You remind me of
another brilliant Christian, John Howard Yoder, who decided the ethic he argued
wasn't important enough to apply to himself, so he started having sex with
undergrad students at Notre Dame.
Finally, Incrus claims that both thiefs REVILED Jesus and neither repented. He says that the thief that was asking Jesus to remember him was actually 'reviling' him, and that when Jesus said that he would be with him in paradise, he was not giving him salvation but that 'paradise' meant death and that the thief would be dead with Jesus that day.